I, as well as the rest of my class, was tasked with determining if there was a bias against minorities in our court systems. I read most of the other student's responses.

There are more "I feel.... because I feel...." arguments than you can shake a stick at, with almost NO evidence to back them up. In almost every single response, there is at LEAST one broad, sweeping statement that is easily shot down with little more than a dozen or so keystrokes in google.

The most comical response involved this argument - "I think blacks and mexicans should get extra legal representation from the government so that they are treated fairly."

For God sake, do some research. It took me no more than five minutes to come up with a logical argument and explanation.

I'm betting most of these kids will vote D. Damn liberal arts college hippies.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

Here's a novel concept- don't break the law, and you'll never have to deal with the court system. Black, brown, yellow, white, doesn't matter. There are tens of millions of people who have never had to worry about disparate treatment from the courts. Know why? because they didn't break the law. Simple.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

assateague wrote:Here's a novel concept- don't break the law, and you'll never have to deal with the court system. Black, brown, yellow, white, doesn't matter. There are tens of millions of people who have never had to worry about disparate treatment from the courts. Know why? because they didn't break the law. Simple.

Seems so simple doesn't it.

Go Get The Bird, maybe you could introduce Chris Rock to bolster your argument.

Welcome to the idiots of the next generation. They have not been taught civics, patriotism, or belief in America. They have instead been coddled and taught to worry about how they feel in place of using their brains.

In my personal experience and discussions I remember from law school, the court system weighs heavily against the poor. Minorities just happen to make up a disproportionate share of that demographic. There's nothing I've seen or heard about in the court system that is inherently unfair to minorities due solely to their ethnicity.

assateague wrote:What exactly does "weighs heavily against the poor mean", from your personal experience in law school?

Just that if you can't afford a lawyer and are left with a public defender, the numbers show that you're not in good shape. I graduated with a few people that ended up with the public defender and they're smart people and seem like good lawyers. But the reality is that public defenders face a massive caseload compared to those of us in the private sector and that puts them at a huge disadvantage. I'm not saying it's a big problem, or even that it's a problem that can be addressed at all. But poor people definitely don't do as well in court as somebody who can afford private counsel.

assateague wrote:What exactly does "weighs heavily against the poor mean", from your personal experience in law school?

Just that if you can't afford a lawyer and are left with a public defender, the numbers show that you're not in good shape. I graduated with a few people that ended up with the public defender and they're smart people and seem like good lawyers. But the reality is that public defenders face a massive caseload compared to those of us in the private sector and that puts them at a huge disadvantage. I'm not saying it's a big problem, or even that it's a problem that can be addressed at all. But poor people definitely don't do as well in court as somebody who can afford private counsel.

That was my response to the question, with the addition of fewer available resources in less fortunate neighborhoods.

assateague wrote:In the interest of fairness, there will be no more private defense attorneys. They will all work for the government, and be assigned cases on a rotational basis.

There. Now it's fair.

Who is going to pay for all of those other WTNs?

Essentially, that's like telling a person who makes a million dollars a year that they have to drive a 1988 Honda Civic coupe, because that's the only thing the poor can afford. I guess if you're ok with having the exact same service and products as everyone else, regardless of you income, then why shouldn't we all be?

Better yet, I'll quit working so that you have to have the same quality of service as me, a person who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

I don't believe in "fairness". That was for the liberals, or those who would cry about the treatment of minority criminals. Personally, I won't need a lawyer, though, because if it ever comes down to it, I'm going out in a blaze of glory. Jail terrifies me.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

assateague wrote:I don't believe in "fairness". That was for the liberals, or those who would cry about the treatment of minority criminals. Personally, I won't need a lawyer, though, because if it ever comes down to it, I'm going out in a blaze of glory. Jail terrifies me.

go get the bird wrote:Essentially, that's like telling a person who makes a million dollars a year that they have to drive a 1988 Honda Civic coupe, because that's the only thing the poor can afford. I guess if you're ok with having the exact same service and products as everyone else, regardless of you income, then why shouldn't we all be?

Better yet, I'll quit working so that you have to have the same quality of service as me, a person who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.